Free Will

"What the prophet has written cannot be unwritten.”* In our class discussion we talked about the analogy of God and writers. Writers control their “worlds” same as gods do – as it is widely believed – whether these worlds are complete fiction or attempts at representing truths. Every action Sam and Dean made to oppose their faith brought them closer to it. The power of their free will is tested against the power of the prophecy (by God) and the screenwriter. In opposition to the perceived freedom of choice in the real world, characters in literature (and the like) are bound to the will of their creators. That said, these characters do appear to have free will within their worlds, though it is subject to their creators’ control.

As the audience, we have the freedom of choosing how to react to the plot adjustments and twists, and consequential discrepancies, which are under the control of the creators. How did Sam and Dean find their way to the prophet just as Lilith went after them? Did God Enable Castiel to indirectly aid the brothers in spite of the prophecy? Or did the screenwriter enable it by “hiding” this information from the character of God? We, the audience, are active participants, and as such we can demonstrate our free will. Will we choose to be fully immersed in the creation and let the manipulation made by the creators take over us? Will we notice the discrepancies and oddities but choose to overlook them? Or, will the plot line be too difficult to accept and our choice will be to disregard the creation completely?

Writers have control both over the characters in their stories and the audience. The audience has the ability to choose whether to allow that control to lead them, whereas the characters do not. In real life, as far as I know, we write our own prophecies.

*Supernatural, season 4, episode 18: The Monster at the End of This Book

**Inspired by class discussion

"All This Happened, More Or Less"

There’s another fun Vonnegut reference for you.

Within both Supernatural and “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” we see the power of a writer to create a set of characters, a plot, and, in essence, what we see as reality, at least in the context of the story. This is normal, but somehow within both these stories it seems revolutionary. We’re comfortable with the idea of fiction being fictional, but the idea that that these fictional worlds are somehow not even happening within their own versions of “reality” is a step too far. We’re not comfortable with the reminder that writers create every facet of their characters. Within Supernatural this is even addressed as Dean tells Chuck, “you didn’t create us,” but why not? What is actually to say that Dean’s life and experiences have not been created by Chuck just as Bierce creates the life and memories of Peyton Farquhar in “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”? Dean is uncomfortable with the idea that his life is being designed, but perhaps the thing that really disturbs him is the idea that his thoughts, actions, and memories are not exclusively his own or are even some how fictional? Why can’t Dean simply be a character that Chuck has designed? (I’m going to let something slip here and it’s this- I’m more than a one time viewer of Supernatural. I’ve seen the show and I know there’s a popular theory that Chuck is not just a prophet, but actually God himself). If Dean is actually just as fictional as Peyton Farquhar, even within the Supernatural universe, then there’s more at play than Dean being uncomfortable with someone else knowing what’s to come; he’s rejecting the idea that at base he is himself somehow fictional, that his life and memories are false.

Perhaps we can relate to this ourselves. While we’re not fictional a characters (though I do remember having some really bad dreams as a kid in which I was simply a doll being controlled by a giant), some parts of our conception of ourselves are fictional. Most notably, we have our own false memories. When we consider our past experiences, we are very much affected by the retellings of others. Even those memories which seem to us to be most vivid are often somewhat variable. I’m not going to go into this too much because it’s complicated, but there’s an explanation of this phenomenon here.

On some level, this is also arises within Cat’s Cradle as Newt Hoenikker tries to retell his memories of the day the bomb was dropped. he notes that he was very young at the time and, furthermore, that even his most vivid memories have been affected by those around him. He even states that the day has been redescribed to him as he says, “My sister Angela has told me many times that I really hurt my father that day when I wouldn’t admire the Cat’s Cradle” (Vonnegut 13). Perhaps Newt’s memories are just as false or affected as those Dean and those of all of us are. Further, as Newt describes his recollections, he leaves them to again be reinterpreted and, thus, at least partially transformed by an author.  

The Importance of Deception

When we read books, we have a peculiar relationship with the author.  We are in his or her hands as they give us the story as crafted by them.  We are basically on a roller coaster; guided by where the author chooses to take us. When I read, I put a lot of trust in what the author is saying because I have an assumption that the piece of literature is worth hearing and I am being treated respectfully by the author.

In An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, the dynamic is different.  There is much deception going on in the last third of the book.  We are challenged on two levels.  One is the basic understanding of the plot.  The second is in the way we are also challenged to think critically on the relationship between the author and the reader.  The author clearly has control of where the story goes, but often will not draw attention to this fact.  Once again, there is definitely an assumption made by the reader to have trust in an author and what they say.  Owl Creek obviously distorts this bond.  The act of purposefully deceiving the reader over text is both shocking and definitely acknowledging the fact that the reader is reading an author's story.  Owl Creek is rife with this moments in which it is aware of itself, including the section that was mentioned in class in which the story says,  

"As these thoughts, which have here to be set down in words, were
flashed into the doomed man's brain rather than evolved from it the
captain..."

This intense awareness in literature is refreshing to the reader and helps us analyze our role in the reading process.  Should I feel betrayed by the illusion seen in the last third of the book? The breaking of my expectations does more for me than simply listing the plot ever would.  However, I feel like this works primarily due to the preexisting tropes and expectations of someone reading more classical literature would have. 

The Monster Is In Your Thoughts

I came across a tweet that says of mysterious texts, "There's a monster at the end of this book. It’s the blank page where the story ends and you're left alone with yourself and your thoughts." Its relevance to the title of the Supernatural episode we watched is worth exploring. In Supernatural, the story has two ends—one for Sam and Dean and one for us, the viewers. For Sam and Dean, the monster - the blank page - appears in the final moments of the episode, after they've left Lilith and Chuck. In the car, driving away from the horrifying motel, they're left with more questions than answers—what happens now? Why is Lilith so ready to bargain with them? Do they have free will, or can they escape what Chuck predicts about their future? There are real monsters in the show, but the metaphorical monster that looms over them in the car might be the most important. It’s the reason they're still uneasy, despite escaping with their lives; it's the reason that ending scene doesn't seem like a true ending, but more like yet another beginning.

For the viewer, the monster is less scary and more confusing. You're left wondering, what did i just watch? (Or, more often in this class, what did I just read?) The show ends and it's up to you to decide what's real. There is manipulation everywhere in the episode – Lilith manipulates Sam; God manipulates Sam, Dean, and Chuck; and in return, Sam uses Chuck to manipulate God. Who’s telling the truth? Is it Lilith, scared and trying to save her own life, telling Sam she doesn’t expect him to believe her even though she’s being honest? What about God, using Chuck to force his idea of destiny on the brothers? How about Sam and Dean, desperately trying to hold onto the idea that they can make their own choices? All these questions are the monsters that plague viewers as we try to unravel the meaning of this episode. The story ends and you cant help but think about it, think about the way you’re manipulated into caring about what happens to the characters.

SO MANY LIES

This is a course on truth, lies, and being wary of words on a page. As I read Cat’s Cradle, the following line fired synapses in my brain even as I strained my glazed eyes and tried hard not to fall asleep. “Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either” (5).

Of course, since I’d like to believe I’m smart, I read Jonah’s words and thought instantly, I understand. Vonnegut starts out with that quote to make us believe him, to make us say oh, I’m smart, I understand and I will understand this book, and squash the part of ourself that disagrees, because that’s the part that won’t understand.

But really? Should I understand? Is it plausible that so many people in San Lorenzo practice this religion of lies? Maybe. Most organized & useful religions have inconsistencies. Many useful things are founded on lies because vivid and well-explained lies are so much easier to believe than shaky and implausible truths.

Or, has that line, and that implausible group of loyal Bokononists been placed in the book to remind us that Cat’s Cradle is a work of fiction, that the whole story is founded on lies, and that it’s Vonnegut’s job to be a good enough writer that he can persuade us to believe what he says? Is that the real mindfuck? Are we being manipulated to believe in Bokononism and its followers through nice language and careful description, when in reality it is all bullshit and Vonnegut’s hoping, at some point, we will come back to that first sentence and understand?

I Don't Believe You, But I Believe Me

Regardless of the subject matter, regardless of the genre, a text in the modern world will be glimpsed through a skeptical lens by most readers. In this culture of criticism and irony, we are reluctant to suspend our disbelief, and to let art do work on us without pushing back. This episode of Supernatural cleverly employs evident self-awareness and self-deprecation in a way that disarms the would-be cynical viewers. We feel solidarity with the characters as they reflect our mentality. In our camaraderie, we find trust, and Supernatural is able to manipulate us.

            Sam and Dean stand in for us in this episode: as they “read” their own story and react to it, they voice many of our opinions and express our emotions towards the show. The more we identify with them, the more we allow them to act in our stead. They deride the fact that their lives could be pre-ordained. They are exasperated by the notion that Chuck wrote them such a tortuous and extremely adverse path. Eventually, they find Chuck, and their whole situation, absurd. We empathize with them. Or really, they empathize with us, and we feel bonded to them for it. When we hear an arch-angel might be the means of saving Sam, we are thankful rather than sardonic. When Lilith brings “real” danger to the plot, we are no longer critically detached.

            When Lilith proposed a deal with Sam to save the world, he gasps, affronted, “You expect me to believe THAT?” She counters, “No. But it’s the truth.” This exchange speaks to the mechanism of the entire episode. We look over the fantastical, contrived, Supernatural world and we take umbrage with the suggestion that we could be fooled to align with such nonsense. Lilith’s manipulative “No” is played out by Sam and Dean, who repeatedly remind us that they, like us, don’t believe a word out of Chuck’s mouth. These guys are sensible. They are like me. “…it’s the truth.” We believe you.

            

Destiny in Cat's Cradle and Supernatural

What determines destiny? Can we discern truth through free will, or are there fundamental truths written for us? The narrator in Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle uses the religion of “Bokononism” to explain almost everything that happens to him. Almost everyone he meets and interacts with is part of his “karass,” and many of his actions are determined by what we would call good luck and what he would call destiny. Similarly, Sam and Dean’s destinies are written in a prophecy from God in “The Monster at the end of this book.” The writer of the prophecy, Chuck, is able to predict every one of their actions, and it is later revealed that their actions are predetermined.

However similar theses two religious outlooks may seem, there are also important differences. Vonnegut’s concept of the karass is thus far preoccupied with people’s interactions in the mortal world. Its truths are not concerned with the afterlife, or even God himself, but rather destiny on earth. It in itself is a contradiction. A Bokononist believes that humans do not interact with God, but instead, God guides their actions through destiny. It may have been written into Bokonon’s destiny to become a profit, however, it is impossible to know one’s destiny, so it would be impossible for him to know the pillars of Bokononism without using his own imagination. He even admits that he made things up in order to make them fit and make his island home a “paradise” (127). On the other hand, in Supernatural, Sam and Dean seek truth through actual interaction with God and angels. Though God also predetermines their destinies, the truth is transparent; to be carried out by the protagonists, not found. God interacts with the human world, whereas in Vonnegut, the narrator must search for the truth within his karass. Though they may seem similar, Supernatrural and Cat’s Cradle have significant differences in their approach to truth and predetermination.  

Question of Destiny

If your entire life was written in a book, would you read the ending? This question has been posed many times, but however cliché, there is still truth to be taken from it. I think that the point of this question refers to the fact that if you knew when and how your life ended, would you live it any differently? Could you live it any differently, or is your fate already determined?

After watching the Supernatural episode “The Monster at the End of the Book”, I could not help but reconsider these questions. The episode deals with the complexity that comes along with trying to change ones destiny. It seemed as though every time Sam and Dean tried to rewrite their fate, they somehow always ended up doing exactly what it was they were trying to avoid. Whatever Chuck, the prophet, saw seemed to be absolute, and it appeared as though the two brothers did not have any free will to make their own decisions.

This idea of free will and destiny calls into question what role we play. Dean and Sam appear to be puppets in someone else’s grand plan. Therefore, are we all just pawns in a pre-established game made by a higher power than ourselves? People often say, “things happen for a reason,” but can we know for certain that they do? This episode made the viewer consider what role they play in their own life. Do we all have the power to make our own decisions, or are we somehow only living out what has already been decided for us?

This idea of fate and destiny is seen in many works of literature. Authors use this as a way to get the reader invested in the story. Even if the author sets up from the beginning how each character will end up, the reader will always try to change the characters destiny and root for the unexpected.

The Importance of Being in Ilium

Most readers of Vonnegut are familiar with the fictional city of Ilium, NY. The city appears in many of Vonnegut’s works including Slaughterhouse-Five, Cat’s Cradle, and Piano Player (among others). There are a few specific sites and buildings to which Vonnegut frequently refers including Ilium High School and the General Forge and Foundry Company. In Cat’s Cradle, Ilium, NY is the hometown and scientific playground of Dr. Hoenikker, the eccentric father of the atomic bomb. The Del Prada Hotel, the Cape Cod Room, the graveyard, Jack’s Hobby Shop, and the tombstone salesroom are introduced into Ilium’s vast collection of settings by this novel. It has been proposed that Ilium could actually be a simple pseudonym for either Troy, NY or Schenectady, NY, but this proposition lacks validity as both cities are described as explicitly separate from Ilium in Vonnegut’s Piano Player. However, descriptions of Ilium do suggest that the city is very much like Troy and Schenectady, and that it would be in a similar geographic area of the state were it real. This completely constructed setting allows Vonnegut to create a city as fanciful or mundane as he so chooses. It is true that Ilium is a common thread throughout Vonnegut’s repertoire, but the question that I have to ask is why does Vonnegut tie his characters and novels together with the use of this city? Why does Billy Pilgrim live in Ilium? Why Dr. Hoenikker? Why Kilgore Trout? One possible answer is very simple: by having one setting span a range of works, those works gain a level of perceived reality that the novels, were they all set in separate fictional locations, could never achieve. Although none of the works that involve Ilium belong to a series, they belong to the same universe by means of a common setting, and this adds an entirely new dimension of believability to Vonnegut’s works.

So let it be written...

In Supernatural, religion is viewed as an absolute truth. God creates the world, and as He does, it's written down by Chuck, a prophet. In the context of the series, these words are now destined to manifest themselves in "reality." That is, they are a complete certainty: none of the characters can escape their predicted fate. God's word is law, to the point that it takes away the most basic free will.

Cat's Cradle, in contrast, deals with the religion Bokononism, which is based on total lies. In fact, the founder of the religion is completely forthright with this information. The religion itself is transparent in the most basic sense, and its followers are encouraged to "live by the foma [harmless untruths] that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy" (Vonnegut vii). The entire belief system is a construction, manufactured in the mind of a fictional character...but is that really so bad? Personally, I think it's better to live by a doctrine that resonates with you (even if it is a lie) rather than live with fate looming overhead, inevitable. In the case of Cat's Cradle and Supernatural, lies create a lot more happiness than truth.

And what is "truth," anyway? In George Orwell's 1984, history changes on a daily basis because the government continually edits the nation's records, destroying evidence of the actual past. This means that, effectively, lots of real people and events never existed. History itself, the most basic truth, becomes a construction. And at the same time, there's no way to prove it's false when it's all that exists. Whether fact or fiction, the written word becomes reality. This is true in Supernatural, where prophetic stories will become gospel to future generations. And it is true in Cat's Cradle, where Bokononist lies will become truths to those who find meaning in them.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Windows of Perception

If something is false, does our perception matter? If we are unaware of the falsity of something, is it true until our perception changes? If we are told that something is false, can it never be true? In the episode of TV series Supernatural entitled “The Monster at the End of this Book,” the main characters, Sam and Dean, discover books that perfectly describe every detail of their lives. After finding the author of said books, Chuck, they immediately assume he is nothing more than a psychic; someone who can see the brothers’ actions before they actually happen. Over the course of the episode, however, Sam and Dean find that Chuck holds a lot more power. He is a prophet, and is transcribing the word of God. With this realization, the brothers discover the “truth;” that they have no free will. However, minutes before this discovery, they believe they are making their own decisions, and creating their own path in life. Does this realization change Sam and Dean’s reality? Nothing, aside from their perception, has actually changed. So, did Sam and Dean ever have free will? If you think about it literally, they didn’t. Their actions were always predetermined, whether or not they knew about it. However, prior to meeting Chuck, their personal truths were different than this truth. They believed in their own ability to make decisions, and so, for them, wouldn’t this belief be considered the “truth?”

         When we were discussing “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” in class, we talked about the idea of reality being equal to truth. While reading this short story, our idea of the main character’s “reality” is constantly changing. We follow him through a long adventure; only to find out he was dead before the second part of the story. Does this mean, if reality and truth are synonymous, that the truth is changing? Is it possible that truth is not concrete? For both the brothers in Supernatural, and the reader of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge,” the end of the episode/story provides an explanation of the truth about the situation. However, I believe, when we are making our own reality out of what we see through our windows of perception, the truth can be something very different.

Count the passes!

Perspective vs. Truth.

The introduction to Cat’s Cradle says, “ nothing in this book is true.” So I asked myself, does this mean that it’s all lies? As I read on, ‘Jonah’ tells the readers, “all of these true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies.” (pg.5) But how can true things be lies? What if a truth is not the opposite of a lie? Perception and perspective make all of this possible.

As I began reading the book, I expected everything to be untrue. I questioned whether the members of his ‘karass’ were ‘real’, whether Dr. Hoenikker even existed, and frankly, whether his name was even Jonah. After discussing what ‘real’ meant in class, I reconsidered how I linked the terms ‘real’ and ‘true’.

 Just like in ‘The Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge’, the story in Cat’s Cradle does not exist off of the page; we accept this because we are told that nothing in the book is ‘true’. However, in Cat’s Cradle, we are taken into different levels of truth and lies due to multiple characters perspectives and perceptions. As we move passed (and almost forget) about the untruthful nature of the Cat’s Cradle story, we move into the story that Jonah is trying to tell. A story within a story – sort of like Inception! With multiple secondary sources, I found myself getting lost and confused trying to figure out what was ‘true’ and what was ‘untrue’ regarding Dr. Hoenikker’s story. Each new source of information would contaminate the previous account. This is prevalent every time someone talks about Frank. Marvin Breed adored Frank while Newt portrayed him as a misfit. Similarly with Dr.Hoenikker; Marvin Breed says that he is “a queer son of a bitch,’ (pg.64) while Knowles says, ‘(..) he aint dead.’ (pg.60) This comes down to perspective and opinion- neither of them is telling the ‘truth’ nor telling a ‘lie’.

Finally, we are introduced to two opposing views regarding ‘truth’. Dr. Breed says, ‘The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become.” (pg.41) Meanwhile, Miss Faust says, “ I have trouble understanding how truth, all by itself, could be enough for a person.” (pg54)First of all, we must question whether these statements are a ‘true’ reflection of the individuals’ beliefs. Then, from these two statements, we are given more evidence that people view the concept of ‘truth’ differently. Within the recollection of events, in order to sound more interesting, there is a great possibility that these character fabricated events. Are these stories the shameless lies? How much of these stories does Jonah believe? How much should the readers believe?

In this novel that is said to be untrue, is there such thing as a lie? Or is it all just a story?